Some great shots. I love shooting with vintage glass. My most recent toy is a vintage Zeiss Planar T* 1.7/50mm. Really quite a beautiful lens, and very sharp when you nail focus.

I share your enthusiasm, an enthusiasm I wouldn't have if mirrorless cameras hadn't made vintage lenses so easy to use; that's probably the chief appeal to me of the Sony a7 line - not the resolution, not the dynamic range, but the fact that they're so far the only FF mirrorless option.

I probably have too many c. 50mm lenses already, but you certainly make this one look appealing - then again, I suspect you could make any lens look good.... I love the colors (among other things) in this photo.

The color rendition is a true strength of the lens. It also has a very nice 3D quality. I've taken to using it for my video reviews because I don't have a lot of time to spend on color grading. It looks good out of the camera.

This forum certainly has an over-representation of landscape/nature/hobbyist/don't-want-to-have-heavy-stuff photographers, which often makes it hard to get a true sense of a lens' desirability/utility on the larger market and in other genres of the craft (not that forum comments aren't ever a good measure of that ). The trend as of late has somehow been that f/2.8 is an unnecessary luxury. For the aforementioned crowd, sure, but it really is further form the truth for a large majority of professionals. There are significantly more wedding/event/concert photographers making a living with their camera than landscape photographers or photographers who want to cut 400g from their bag. They also aren't using filters so the bulbous front element is irrelevant. Most those guys have kept their Canon 16-35 f/2.8 in response to the Canon f/4 IS, but they finally have another option, and Tamron really delivered it with this one. It's just a shame Tamron doesn't have the same reputation as the new Sigma Art line. If this was a Sigma Art 15-30 f/2.8 OS I would bet money it would be THE lens you'd see at every wedding reception.

Great POV. This lens is my choice because of the ability to do all of the above. I do think that square filters will arrive for this lens. Also, in my real world use I found something that I'm not sure that chart testing will reveal - the lens has amazing microcontrast that is very much like using a Zeiss lens. I think that I will get a review copy of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 and compare the two side by side in a month or two. I fully expect the images to have much more "bite" from the Tamron. Real world images will LOOK sharper from a lens with superior microcontrast.

The 16-35 f/4L IS is a great lens. I found basically nothing to criticize. But that lens did not excite me as a photographer; this one does.

The only mount in Samyang products that has a focus confirm chip is Nikon. None of the others have any electronics. If I were to purchase one of these lenses, I would add a Dandelion focus confirm chip to it and then calibrate it to make sure it was accurate.

I did that with my Samyang 14mm, but I'd really like not to do it again, as the calibration process was really a pain to do properly (and for an UWA at f/2.8... I don't really want to think about calibrating the dandelion chip on a 135 f/2... ) Wasn't there a few rumors around saying Samyang would put a chip on its lenses in the not-too-far off future ?

I'm not a big fan of video review, so I won't comment on it, but that last image is really nice. Getting a blurred background at that distance with a subject that small in the frame is giving it a very nice look. And as always, I love your colors.

Is the lens still shipping without any contact chip on it ? (still no focus confirm, exif, etc ? )

Djaaf.

The only mount in Samyang products that has a focus confirm chip is Nikon. None of the others have any electronics. If I were to purchase one of these lenses, I would add a Dandelion focus confirm chip to it and then calibrate it to make sure it was accurate.

I don't really know what to make with this, but it does not at all equate to what I am seeing.

I won't elaborate further other to say that I have yet to see a Tamron lens "chart" particularly well at TDP.

I've thoroughly tested both lenses, and they are both great, but my personal preorder is in for the Tamron.

Are you sure you made the right choice? I only ask because your reviews and websites are so full of test charts and brick walls, I wonder if you ever get out and shoot outdoors. Apparently the cold must keep you inside

Just kidding of course and that's what I like best about your reviews - you actually use the gear for real shooting and talk about how it does for those purposes.

What can I say? There is just something about brick walls that I love. And cats. Lots and lots of cat photos.

Thanks. And sorry, I did not mean to hijack the thread. We can now return to the regularly scheduled discussion about the 100-400mm II.

I think a discussion of the 150-600 VC remains very germane to this topic. A decision between these two lenses is still the biggest one for most Canon tele shooters on a budget. The Sigma (which should be on its way to me shortly), is reportedly quite excellent optically, but is a true beast in terms of size and weight. Not many people are reporting much interest in shooting it handheld.

Very nice Dustin. It seems like there's a bit of decentering, but it's barely noticeable (top left corner is a bit worse than top right corner). And the coma seem to be on par with the Samyang 14mm, which is quite the achievement.

I'll have to see it with my own eyes to see if the size will really be an issue or not, but right now, i'm awfully tempted.

Djaaf.

I don't know if you have seen the Nikon 14-24mm, but it is just marginally larger than that. Weight wise it falls right between a 24-70 f/2.8 (840g) and 70-200 f/2.8 (1470g); it is 1100g.